[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Ltru] going back to the roots to find a solution to "zh"



> > It's my impression that at least part of what kept us from going that route was
> >
> > (a) the scenarios in which extlang-to-macrolanguage fallback didn't provide useful results,
> > (b) the scenarios in which extlang might hinder useful right-truncation fallback
> > in existing implementations because region or script are more useful than extlang, and

> I see (a) and (b) as being practically the same argument, since they are
> both focused on kinds of right-truncation fallback.  Any heuristic that returns
> something other than what the user explicitly asked for deserves a "health
> warning".  The question is whether we allow a heuristic with known limitations
> to override all other concerns.

I agree, and also I'm concerned that regardless of the form of the tag, then 4647bis is going to have to address fallback in some way that is smarter than right-truncation.  None of the techniques we've discussed work for all apps with pure right-truncation

> > (c) the assumption that, if we use extlang at all, then we must use it for all macrolanguages
> > rather than being able to specify particular cases (no cherry picking).

> I don't see this as an obstacle.

It seems to me that we're cherry picking zh no matter which direction we go, so I don't think this should be a major concern.

==========================================

> As co-chair:

> I'm very concerned that this issue continues to come up.  That suggests
> that either our rationale isn't clear enough in the i-d, or that we've got it
> wrong.  It could be that this is just one of those situations where there is
> no "right" answer, and we need to just pick one.

> When Peter started this thread, he gave us a useful explanation of how
> two differing points of view led to our current situation.  Perhaps it might
> be useful to work through the pros and cons of the alternatives from
> the perspectives of important user communities, both as producers and
> as consumers of tagged data, new and legacy.

I agree.  I think that we've come to the current point through good intentions, but that the end result doesn't give us the clarity that we originally expected.  I think we need to back up a bit and look at the bigger picture rather than trying to tweak a couple paragraphs.

- Shawn

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru



Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.